Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Research Sheds Light on How the Brain Responds to Stimulus and Learns

It’s no surprise that the brain is profoundly complex. We discussed here, here and here that the brain contains hundreds of billions of nerve cells which are connected via hundreds of trillions of synapses. That a single synapse is like a microprocessor (although far more complex of course), with both memory-storage and information-processing functions and thousands of molecular switches. That a single human brain has more switches than all the computers, routers and Internet connections in the world. That evolutionists now admit that the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief. That evolutionists insist it is a fact that the brain evolved, and yet fail miserably to explain how such an incredible event occurred, or even how we could know it to be a fact. It just is, because, ultimately, it boils down to metaphysical claims about what must be true, scientific evidence be damned.

But all of this is, as usual, only one small sliver the evolution’s absurdities. For if the brain itself is complex, consider what it does. For instance, the brain is a fantastic learning machine. As a baby explores its environment it learns, and in this process a massive array of molecular switches and controls are adjusted within the brain.

One research study, for instance, found 12,000 segments of DNA (which as usual evolutionists had thought were mere oddities) that are transcribed in response to environmental stimuli. This is the first step in the brain’s process of responding, adjusting and learning. These DNA segments, known as enhancers, influence gene expression which in turn influences how the brain’s neurons function and communicate with each other.

Presumably learning processes such as this lead to knowledge. But does knowledge lead to wisdom?

Every time we've observed something being created, that something was designed by intelligent agents that exhibit intent. Therefore, all complex things were designed by intelligent agents that exhibit intent.

Yet… I can't shake the feeling that there is something horribly wrong with this line of thinking, and there is something I recently read that would shed some light on the problem.

Ah yes. Now I remember.

Every time we've observed intelligence and intent, it's also been accompanied by one of these wonderfully complex nervous systems that Cornelius just outlined; which consists of a "massive array of molecular switches and controls. And extremely complex things, like computers, are always accompanied by the human brain, which depends on 12,000 segments of DNA just to respond to environmental stimuli alone.

Should we follow the same logic as above, it seems we should also conclude that all intelligence and intent requires one of these very same complex material nervous systems. After all, that's what we observer, each and every time, right?

Otherwise, it would seem that you're not actually using this particular means of justifying conclusions, you just *think* you are.

No, it is "almost unimaginably" complex. therefore design is the *best* explanation presently. Particularly what he know about how *systems* work. But go ahead and knock yourself trying to demonstrate it evolved via blind mechanisms. I'll be waiting. (yawn)

It must be awfully frustrating for many of you. Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA way back in 1953, long before most of you were born. Ditto for the Miller Urey experiments back in 1952.

Ah yes, those were heady days. Almost everyone thought that scientific progress would abolish all the mysteries. Hardly anyone dreamed that the advance of science would instead reveal that things were way more complicated than anyone realized. Or that science was shooting at a moving target that, like the universe, keeps expanding so that the goals are getting farther and farther away.

"No, it is "almost unimaginably" complex. therefore design is the *best* explanation presently."

The grand canyon is almost unimaginably complex if you are willing to consider every crack, facet and alcove which makes it up. Does this give us reason to suppose it was designed and deliberately created?

Besides, there is no supporting evidence for the design hypothesis. And with no evidence, there it is just a blind guess - no better than the practically infinite number of blind guesses we could make. It is far from being a 'best explanation'.

I think you're talking total nonsense. I don't believe there was ever a time when scientists sincerely believed the Answer to Everything was just around the corner. That goes fundamentally against everything science is. Far from revealing The One And Only Answer, Now We Can All Go Home, scientific theories should lead to MORE questions, not fewer. More research, more mysteries to solve, more work to do. That is the way of science.

Quite why you think things being complicated is a devastating blow for scientists, I really can't guess. Of course no-one realised how complicated things were until they found out. That's always true of everything. Things are always more complicated than you realise. Because until you find out, then you have no idea how complicated they are! Seems a thoroughly silly argument to me.

Just about every scientist recognizes that the landscape of knowledge is fractal in nature, and no matter the scale of our knowledge the unknowns will always be equally abundant. For those who love learning it's something to be celebrated. It means that learning will never and can never cease. Even if we answer every possible question that we can think of to ask today, the answers that we find will inevitably raise other questions that we couldn't think to ask because we didn't know enough to know that it was a question worth asking.

For those who love just knowing, though, it's something to be feared. It means that we'll never know everything. Never. Learning is, for them, a damnable thing because the more you learn the more you come to know just how much you don't know. Learning itself becomes a sisyphean endeavor, futile and eternally doomed to failure. Who cares what we do know if we still don't know what we didn't know before?

I for one prefer to know what I can today, even if that means being more acutely aware of my own ignorance. I'd rather answer a question with "I don't know, but I'll try to find out," than with "Some guy did it and that's good enough for me."

Humans are very good at detecting design. If something looks designed, then it is a reasonable assumption and worth investigating if there is evidence for it. But, evolutionists reject design by default, not because they have a better argument, but to fulfill their philosophical agenda. Saying "evolution did it" is so compelling logically to them that evidence is more of an annoying thing that they must deal with in order to look like they have an intellectual argument rather than a crybaby stealing from the cookie jar argument.

The mountain of evidence that evolutionists claim is bird beak type evidence. Behold the bird beak, therefore all life descended from a common ancestor.

Ritchie said, "And if your explanation is not naturalistic, then it isn't science"

--

That is a statement of faith. Besides, what is natural? What is more "natural" than the creation of life by a designer?

"Science" is defined much more broadly than you suggest,and the pursuit of knowledge should not be straightjacketed by your statement of faith.

--

You said, "No, all life descended from a common ancestor because their DNA says they do. And because all evidence is consistent with this."

--Says? Talking DNA?

Unfortunately the details in the DNA betray such a scenario. Increasing research in genetic sequencing bringing to light phylogenetic conflicts that can be seen everywhere in the supposed universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.

No it isn't. It is a statement of fact. By necessity, non-naturalistic explanations are not scientific. If you do not understand this point then you do not understand what science is.

"Besides, what is natural?"

In this case, I am specifically referring to things we can show or infer to exist. Gods, ghosts, fairies, unicorns, etc., all fail here because we cannot show them to exist. They are un- / sub- / super- natural. We can try to establish their existence scientifically, but until we have done so and succeeded, then we cannot use them as agents in our scientific explanations.

""Science" is defined much more broadly than you suggest,and the pursuit of knowledge should not be straightjacketed by your statement of faith."

Science is defined by the search of knowledge THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which absolutely necessitates methodological naturalism. If any part of any explanation you are using involves non-naturalistic agents then what you are doing is not science. It's that simple.

"Increasing research in genetic sequencing bringing to light phylogenetic conflicts that can be seen everywhere in the supposed universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves."

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where
he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is
Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot
(Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution
involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects
of the theory. His website is http://www.darwins-god.blogspot.com/